Posts
Monday would not be Monday with a fresh batch of nonsense over which to get agitated.
Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov was asked how it was possible for Russia to claim it was seeking to “de-Nazify” Ukraine when its president was Jewish. To this incredibly stupid question, Lavrov answered: "I could be wrong, but Hitler also had Jewish blood. [That Zelensky is Jewish] means absolutely nothing. Wise Jewish people say that the most ardent anti-Semites are usually Jews."
Quoth BBC: “The minister's statement was met with outrage across Israel's political spectrum.”
Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett said: "Such lies are meant to blame the Jews themselves for the most terrible crimes in history and thus free the oppressors of the Jews from their responsibility” adding "No war today is the Holocaust or is like the Holocaust."
Israel's Foreign Minister weighed in: “Foreign Minister Lavrov’s remarks are both an unforgivable and outrageous statement as well as a terrible historical error. Jews did not murder themselves in the Holocaust. The lowest level of racism against Jews is to accuse Jews themselves of antisemitism.”
The BBC notes at the end of the article that “There have for decades been unproven claims that Hitler's unidentified paternal grandfather was Jewish, fuelled by an assertion by Hitler's lawyer Hans Frank. Frank said he uncovered evidence that Hitler's grandfather was indeed Jewish - though the claim, which has gained ground among conspiracy theorists, has been treated with scepticism by mainstream historians.”
1. The Stupid Question.
The fact that Zelinsky is Jewish has no bearing on whether there are neo nazis in the Ukraine any more than the fact that Obama was Black would mean that there was no racism in the United States. All nations are comprised of different types of peoples and political factions. Furthermore, a politician from one faction very often has to compromise and make deals with his opponents. Franklin Roosevelt was not a racist but he had to make deals with Dixiecrats to satisfy the latter's racist demands. That an accredited journalist on the diplomatic beat would ask such a primitive question is beyond belief.
2. The Stupid Answer.
Instead of giving the answer I just gave, Lavrov doubled down into the sandbox by bringing up Hitler. One might think a seasoned diplomat would spot a hornets nest hanging over the door. It was first of all stupid to say that “having Jewish blood means nothing.” It means a lot to Jews. He should not have let his intended meaning hang on an ellipsis. He could have at least said: “... it means nothing in the context of making deals in politics.” He might have found an appropriate quote from the first Baron of Rothschild to that effect....
But no. Lavrov went on to venture a questionable generalizaton that the most ardent anti-semites are “usually” Jews. That is nonsense. It is true, that some ardent anti-semites have been Jewish or of Jewish descent. The Spanish inquisitor, Torquemada, was of proximate Jewish ancestry. Saint Teresa of Avila was Jewish by birth and said very nasty things against Jews. Marx's essay On the Jewish Question has left leftists scrambling to “contextualize” some of the statements he made. Frederick Marr who coined the word “anti-semitism” to describe his own beliefs was married to a Jew. One could go on. But so what? The most ardent homophobes are often themselves homosexuals. The most ardent anything usually masks insecurities or phobias.
It is true that there is some evidence that would support the inference that Hitler had Jewish blood. The BBC is being misleading when it says that the claim is treated with “skepticism” by most historians. What the matter boils down to is that “Hitler's father, Alois, was registered as an illegitimate child with no father when born in 1837 and to this day Hitler's paternal grandfather is unknown. Alois’ mother, Maria Schicklgruber, is known to have worked in the home of a wealthy Jew, so there is some chance, however small, that a son in that household got Hitler's grandmother pregnant.” (Jewish Virtual Library.) Most historians say simply that the evidence is so circumstantial that no positive inference can be drawn.
There was no reason for Lavrov to broach any of this, particulary absent any indication that Zelinksy himself harbors an anti-Jewish animus.
3. The Unhinged Reaction.
But that the question and answer were undeniably stupid does not mean that the reaction was within the bounds of reason.
No one equated the war in Ukraine with the annihilation of Europe's Jews. No one “blamed the Jews” for Nazi genocide. No one claimed that Jews “murder[ed] themselves in the Holocaust.” The rhetorical hyperbole is based on the fallacy of generalization: to jump from “one” to “all.”
Let it be supposed, for the sake of argument, that Hitler was Jewish or at least believed he might be; and that, so believing, he suffered from intense feelings of self doubt and loathing which he then projected on to Jews in general by whose genocide he “purged” or “corrected” his own supposed Jewishness. All that is still the psychosis of one man; one supposedly Jewish man who ordered the murder of millions of others. That does not by any stretch of logic or even of imagination translated into “Jews murdering themselves.” It just doesn't.
What disturbs us about this unhinged and aggressive reaction is that it magnifies a stupid incident into a world-historical or even a cosmological event supposedly necessitating what is in actuality a completely exagerrated response. This flows from turning the genocide of European Jews into a taboo called “Holocaust.” It is the nature of a taboo that by making something “unquestionable,” “untouchable,” “unapproachable,” “incomparable” and “immeasureable” reason itself, which is always a question of measure, is derailed.
There is very little difference between today's reaction from Israel or Jewish organizations and the Muslim reaction to any disparagement of “the Prophet” or the medieval reaction to denying the Resurrection of Jesus.
This sort of over the top reaction actually disserves the memory of the victims of Nazi genocide. Eventually, people will simply tire of it and come to see it as a form of self-serving manipulation. Stated another way, outrage looses its impact when it becomes routine.
The mass murder of European Jews with the intent to eradicate that group as such (“genocide”) was an historical event that can be studied or remembered. Although historians can always find issues and subtopics to investigate, for general purposes, the history of the matter has been combed enough. For the rest of us, what is left is an act of remembrance which, at bottom, serves a social and political purpose. Some acts of remembrance are occasions for happiness and celebration; others are occasions for reflection and resolve. But remembrance too looses its force when overdone.
To pounce upon every stupid, ill-considered, or malicious remark with the vigilant vehemence and fury of a Torquemada will eventually cheapen the very thing safeguarded.
